Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 186 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTDoctrine of promissory estoppel - Demand of Entertainment Tax - Grant of Concession upto 33% when paid in lump sum - whether budget proposal would invoke the principle of promissory estoppel - The writ petitioners were the firms engaged in the business of cinema and had been granted licence under the provisions of Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 - Held that:- The petitioners were not entitled to raise the plea of promissory estoppel - One of the essential ingredients so as to invoke doctrine of promissory estoppel was altering of position by a person - the averments do not show that the petitioners had altered their position on the basis of representation of the functionaries of the State. The petitioners were running cinemas and continued to run cinema even after the speech of the Chief Minister / Finance Minister - If the petitioners have provided better facilities and infrastructure though in the absence of any material, such fact cannot be taken into consideration, still such better facilities do not lead to alteration of positions by the petitioners on the strength of promise made - It was the convenience of the visitors, which was taken care of by the cinema owners, when they provided better facilities and infrastructures or when they screen big budget films, which will obviously gave better revenue to the petitioners as well - Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have altered their position to their detriment on the basis of speech of the Finance Minister proposing the reduction of the entertainment tax. Mere payment of entertainment tax in lump sum by the petitioners will not create any equity in favour of the petitioners nor can the respondents be said to be bound by the principle of promissory estoppel on the basis of such representation - Such proposal cannot acquired the status of law, so as to be treated as a deemed abolition of entertainment tax imposed under the Punjab Entertainment Tax (Cinematograph Shows) Rules, 1954 - The proposal in the Budget Speech had not travelled to the stage of law nor the representation was categorical that entertainment tax, if paid in lump sum, would be at reduced rate - The representation was only of “proposal” and not the decision. State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. & another [2004 (5) TMI 65 - SUPREME Court ]- The doctrine of promissory estoppel was an equitable remedy and had to be moulded depending on the facts of each case and not straitjacketed into pigeonholes - there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel but the doctrine had to evolve and expand itself so as to do justice between the parties and ensure equity between the parties. Whether entertainment tax can be permitted to be paid in lump sum or not - Neither the budget proposal nor the earlier statement of Chief Minister was to the effect that it had been decided to permit the payment of entertainment tax in lump sum - The representation was only that the State Government had proposed the payment of entertainment tax in lump sum so as to grant concession upto 33% - No promissory estoppel can be raised against the State on the basis of such promise, when the levy of entertainment tax was statutory.
|